Lol, I forgot how fun debating evolutionists was.I can beat anybody in a debate on any science subject, Darwin or Einstein, pro or anti scientific consensus.

It's so ironic that science has claimed the sole right of rational thinking, while being in error and being blind to it.

It's so ironic that science has claimed the sole right of rational thinking, while being so much in error, and blindly being unaware of it.I can beat anybody on evolution of relativity debate, pro or anti. Pick your side, I'll own you.

On April 15th, I received the following challenge:

Dishonest creationist making you an offer

Hey Aron,I like your hair. You got your own style. That's cool.

I've seen a couple of your videos and you say there's no honest creationist who propagate creation knowing the evidence for evolution.

Well, I don't mind being called dishonest, because I know you don't know better than what you believe is true.

But here, I just have a proposition for you.If you are ever tired of the same old debates with the same old arguments, then ask me to face you.

And don't worry. If you know your stuff, you'd have no trouble exposing my 'dishonesty', right?

Rules are simple and I hope you can agree to them:1) I'll give you a chance to present your top three of evidence for evolution and 2) I'll respond to that. If I can't, then you win.3) If I can prove to you that all three of your arguments are false or incomplete or indecisive or invalid, then next thing will be me striking you with my top 3 of evidence against evolution. 4) You'll try your best to respond with honesty, reason and facts. If you can, then you'll still win. If you can't, then I'll suggest you take back your words about dishonest creationists.

This is my offer.You seem like a smart guy and I hope you are, so I expect this could be interesting.

Regards,

P.H. Tran

...to be continued.

Last edited by AronRa on Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

I responded, Do you have a forum in mind? Because if I do this at all, then I would prefer that this be a written debate.

and he replied:

Written debate is fine with me. How about thescienceforum.com? It doensn't matter to me which forum it's gonna be, as long as it's a decent forum.

Subject is evolution of species. Let's exclude genesis and biogenesis, unless you insist to discuss these topics too. I think there's not much hard evidence for or against either, and I rather discuss testable theses.

Bible or faith doesn't count for evidence. So I won't use it.Bring your best three arguments. If they are crap, then I assume that other arguments are even more crap, because you chose the best ones.So don't come to me afterwards with claims like "there's thousands of peer reviewed papers". I don't care. It is more for you to choose from. Use it to your advantage as best as you can. Your three arguments will count. After you made your arguments, I will probably ask you to explain them in more detail in specific ways how your evidence support evolution, to be sure we are talking about the exact same evidence and same logic and arguments, so that I can refute your argument and not any straw man. We don't want to be dishonest here.

So whenever you're ready, tell me if you like this debate challenge and want to accept it or not.

Why do you want me to see this? Looks to me as a lot of sarcasm to bash creationist's faith. Nothing new here.

AronRa April 19th That's me -pretending to be a creationist -as I suspect you are too.

phicomingatya April 20th

Your suspicion is wrong.

You have knowledge of scientific evidence supporting evolution.But you do not master it. If you did, you'd know better.

Go ahead and believe what you want to. It doesn't hurt me.I'm curious though. How much of an expert are you really?

AronRa April 20th

> Your suspicion is wrong.

You're an anonymous YouTuber with only two subscribers and no discernible identity, verifiable position, or import beyond that. That is certainly suspicious. It also strongly implies that it would be yet another waste of my time even agreeing to debate you, especially on the likelihood that this may just be a joke. The terms you laid would cause every creationist I've ever met to cringe. If you're actually serious, then you will likely vanish when you lose (as my former opponents usually have whenever they could) so that winning against you will be meaningless; Because you could just resume your old identity, forget about this one, and pretend this never happened. I'm looking for a sort of creationist who is typical of evolutionists in that he is both concerned with his credibility and yet still accountable. So far I've never encountered any creationist who ever met either criteria. So who are you?

> You have knowledge of scientific evidence supporting evolution.> But you do not master it. If you did, you'd know better.Know better than what?

> Go ahead and believe what you want to.

I can't. It's not a matter of choice for me the way it is for those who believe on faith. I can only believe what appears to be evidently true, and my perspective will obligately change as my understanding of the evidence improves.

> I'm curious though. How much of an expert are you really?

It's hard to say objectively. From my own personal experience, I'd have to say that I understand evolution better than most professional scientists, and that even includes some paleontologists. I certainly know more about it than any supposedly honest creationist ever could.

I generally do this over at ChristianForums. Oddly enough, I've never debated at the League of Reason, although I really should.

Phicomingatya April 20th

I am not joking. You're gonna have to trust me. Reject my offer, if you want, I don't mind.I've been into evolution a while ago, but I've come to realize that evolutionists believe they are superior and they think they have the right to make dumb arguments and call it science.Anyway, last summer I started looking into the mysteries of black holes. I've studied Einstein's theories and quantum physics. There are people dedicating their lives to find proof for Einstein's theory.

Now I've told some of my friends that I don't trust measurements with the the inferometer, which they used to measure the speed of light. I said, if Einstein is wrong, then I will find it. I have already posted a problem for Einstein on a dutch science forum. It's been four weeks and nobody has solved it yet.

I have proof now that Einstein's relativity theory fails.

Kind of ironic, to think that two of the famous people in twentieth century's science, Charles and Albert, turn out to be both in error.

But I do not expect you to understand quantum physics. It is said that only twelve people on this planet understand Einstein's theory.

But there's a lot of work to do for me.

In the mean time, I thought I'd see how the evolution debate was going. It's still creationists making fools of themselves.

Your debates with them are meaningless. Evolution is a scientific topic. You cannot expect with opponents who bring faith into the debate, to have a meaningful debate. It's a joke!

You win, but you prove nothing with it. My offer stands for now. It's an opportunity for you to have your first meaningful debate. I suggest you only accept it if you are one hundred percent up for it. Because if you are not, then we are both wasting our time.

AronRa April 20th

> I've come to realize that evolutionists believe they are > superior and they think they have the right to make > dumb arguments and call it science.

That's not the problem with me.

I'm never "100% up to" anything. These days there isn't time to be. I average over a hundred messages a day, and I have a demanding job, a family, and a full life beyond whatever I still manage to divide with YouTube. But what you're talking about won't be that taxing.

You still haven't identified yourself as I asked you to. I have no idea who you are, or who ELSE you are. So you're still just a posturing poser, beating your own chest whilst hiding safely behind the veil of anonymity. You don't have your credibility on the line as I do, and you have offered no reason to be interested in debating you. Nor have you even given any objective criteria by which we are to judge whether our evidence or arguments are "crap".

But I guess that doesn't really matter either way. Give me a few days to clear my plate, and I'll post an opening comment at the League of Reason laying out our parameters.

Phicomingatya April 21st

I about my identity do you want to know? I have no other identity on youtube.

AronRa April 21st

I didn't need to know your full legal name or address. I don't want you to drop your docs. Almost any sort of introduction would have done; your credentials or background, the source of your interest in this matter, just a general idea of who you are, and why I should be interested in debating you. Because frankly, when a nameless internet nobody -amounting to nothing more than a confrontational pseudonym- declares that he (or she) is smarter than all the greatest scientific specialists throughout history regardless of their field of expertise, -just 'cuz he says so, and with no record of any recognition whatsoever, it's obviously difficult to be impressed or even take that person seriously at all.

But as I said, it doesn't really matter -other than, when I win, the creationists will simply deny that you were ever one of them, and scientists would agree, saying that you were simply a troll having a joke. Winning against a creationist is inevitable. None of them can present any challenge, so the only satisfaction I could even hope for is if it were possible to hold one accountable so that they actually admit their errors honorably, as I already must. Creationists would then say that you were never a TRUE believer, and anyone who thought you were still wouldn't respect you, because you're still anonymous and never put your reputation on the line. So neither of us have anything to gain.

People know who I am. So if it were possible for you to win, that would actually mean something. Once I concede that you're right, thank you for your correction, and change my mind accordingly, then the creationists would have something to chortle about and taunt scientists with. If you could convince me, then you could convince them too, and that would definitely earn you a healthy amount of respect, which you currently can't have and don't deserve. Were I as you are, nothing more than a silly name "comin' atcha" on the internet, then your victory would be as meaningless as the potential reality which your promise to promote.

Phicomingatya April 21st

Well, you can can me Phi. I have yet to earn my credentials, but those who know me give me credit.Last time I talked to this fellow student of mine (yes, still studying, but I have two master degrees in science already) about six months ago about my twenty pieces of evidence against evolution, he expected me to pull things from the bible. A lot of people have been asking me to write it down and send it to them. But i want to collect more data on retroviruses and rock layers to make my presentation complete.

I do no use creationist websites, because they post creation as an alternative theory. Creation cannot be tested with scientific data. So there's no point in arguing for it or against it in a scientific debate.Besides, they have crap arguments like thermodynamics. Honestly, I can hardly blame evolutionists laugh at such arguments.

But to be fair. I've had my share of laughs too, when reviewing arguments that suppose to support evolution.

There are idiots on both sides. Have you heard Dawkins talk about the blind spot of the human eye? You can look it up on youtube. I do hope you understand why I have to laugh out loud listening to his story. If you don't, I seriously think you are not worth debating. Just so you know.

AronRa April 21st

Is 'Phi' short for Phizzini? Because you remind me of a character in a movie called the Princess Bride. He described himself as an inconceivable genius, compared to him, the likes of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates were morons. So it is with you. I'm certainly not worth debating because compared to you, Einstein is a moron, and even the leading experts on evolutionary biology are but idiots; again simply because you've arbitrarily decided that Dawkin's argument is 'crap' with no objective criteria offered to substantiate that judgment.

But you may as well debate me anyway, simply for the public good. Because thus far, all creationists have ever been able to do is whine that science hasn't yet figured out exactly how this or that happened. They can only complain about what they perceive as weaknesses in our current understanding of some of the details of evolution -as if that calls the whole matter into question. So they criticize the existing theory, and have never conjured anything with any scientific value to to offer in its place. And of course you would need that or there couldn't even be a debate to begin with.

Consequently evolution has always been the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, it has extensive explanative and predictive power, and it is the only option which provides any practical application in the real world. Creationism consistently fail in all of these criteria, because negative arguments are all they ever had, and that's just not good enough, especially when it is so easy to prove that we are evolving apes. So my challenge to them has always been to produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence that was actually indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other actual science. If you seriously think you have that -twenty times over- (as you said) then you owe it to the world to reveal what these secrets are, right? Besides, you owe it to yourself too, because there's bound to be a Nobel prize in it for you!

...still to be continued.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

I clearly overestimated you. You seem not to see Dawkins blunder. He is hardly considered as a respectable scientist among the field researchers.He's only well known to the public, but that's about most of it.

Phi is really my middle name.I do not expect that winning a debate against you, will have any meaningful impact on youtube or among scientsts. I've been around long enough to see the ignorance on both sides of the debate.I may debate you, because I made the offer, and I'll keep my word. Just to see how honest YOU really are.

But tell me this. Have you seen and heard what Dawkins said aboutthe jiggling of the eye? Seriously, check it out! I never had high regards for Richard, but I ddi not expect him to be this dumb.

Another "scientist" is actually telling him about the eye constant jiggling. And he just stands there and agrees. What about you? Do you agree with the constant jiggling of the eye solving the blind spot problem to any significance?

AronRa April 25th

> I clearly overestimated you.

I guess I should expect you to say something like that whenever you misunderstand me. Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember Dawkins(?) saying something about the eye darting about to compensate for the blind spot, but I am not very familiar with most of his arguments because I don't follow him. Unlike you, I don't disregard the fact that Dawkins won a few awards in his decades of experience as a professor of science at both Oxford and Berkeley, and the fact that he has a Ph.D. in zoology, along with several honorary degrees; and a fellowship in the Royal Society certainly implies that he is a respectable scientist as well as a leading science advocate. Still my criticism of his style is a matter of public record. Of all the 'popularizers' of evolutionary science,still alive today, I prefer Dr. Kenneth Miller, even if he is a Catholic.

> I do not expect that winning a debate against you, will have any > meaningful impact on youtube or among scientsts.

> I may debate you, because I made the offer, and I'll keep my word. > Just to see how honest YOU really are.

I see. So when acting like Wile E. Coyote, "super-genius" didn't intimidate me, you decided to irritate me instead by questioning my integrity, is that it? Why are creationists so quick to start in with the insults?

The arrogance of creationists is so common-place that you're no different than any of your brethren. Look at GEERUP or VenomFangX for example, or any of your leaders, like Hovind, Ham, Falwell, Robertson, or any of that lot. Each of them act as though they know more than all the world's collective experts in any given field, yet none of them actually knows dick about jack, and they prove that every time they speak. So once a creationist graduates from an actual accredited college, then their arrogance is amplified. Give one a degree in dentistry and suddenly he thinks he knows more about fossils than every paleontologist. Likewise one with an engineering diploma thinks he's better than any astrophysicist. But regardless who they are, or what they think they know, all of them seem to think they have the final absolute proof against whatever material science they're most afraid of. So why do you think you're so special?

Of course the difference between us is that what matters most to me is that I find out what is real, don't jump to conclusions, and try not be deceived. To that end, I must correct any errors in my current perspective in order to improve my understanding, while you must find some way to defend your a-priori pre-determined preferred beliefs no matter how wrong they may turn out to be. That is one thing every creationist organization I know of openly admits. So my position is vastly more honest than yours even could be.

If you actually have something that is substantive, verifiably accurate, and positively indicative of divine conjuration, and you share it with me in a public forum frequented by scientists, (as you proposed) then others will see it, and we'll all have proof that we heard it from you first. So here's where I do you a tremendous favor: If you manage to stump me, quite a few other people will notice, I assure you. And if your arguments and evidence are actually valid, then you'll inevitably stump everyone else too, right? How could you not? And there you go, world-wide fame and accolades, and a million-dollar prize awarded at a formal affair in Stockholm. You'd already know before you even publish that what you have is gold.

However, if the same thing happens to you as invariably always happens to every creationist who ever debates *anyone* in writing, and it turns out in the end that evolution from a common ancestry with other animals still seems to be essentially true, while creationism is still evidently not, (and I think we both already know that's how things will inevitably turn out) then you will have saved yourself the phenomenal embarrassment of publishing flubbery rubbish to peer-reviewed journals,only to lose all your credibility before you even finish school. See what a nice guy I am?

....and now on to the actual debate.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

You asked me to present my 'top three' examples of evidence of evolution,all of which you said you would prove are "false, incomplete, indecisive, or invalid". I have decided to show only two, because that is what your posture seems to demand. I have tried to make them as inclusive as I think should be appropriate here. But that both of my examples are still 'incomplete' should be given, because man's knowledge of any subject will never be complete. Of course you're still welcome to try and prove that they are each fundamentally false, indecisive, or invalid.

Just to confirm our terms, evolution is succinctly defined as 'descent with inherent [genetic] modification' pertaining to reproductive populations; the implications of this process being that multiple lineages emerge and diverge from a branching series of common ancestors.

To deny that this is effectively true is tantamount to saying that virtually all our best educated expert specialists in every relevant field of science over the last few hundred years are collectively incompetent, (which actually does seem to be your stance) or that the world's biologists and geologists are -to some degree- knowingly participating in a massive and cohesive centuries-old world-wide conspiracy to defraud everyone everywhere for no apparent reason. That evolution is demonstrably functional and factual will be the second point I intend to address. But your position also necessarily contends that the indicated 'tree of life' is an illusion. So that will be my first example.

1. Phylogenetic systematics, or Cladistic Taxonomy

This began as a simple recognition of homology leading to the first proposal of evolution by Anaximander some 2,600 years ago, and followed immediately by Lord Krsna's opposition to it in the Bhagavad Gita. The essence of the phylogenetic tree is explained in my video on the 10th foundational falsehood of creationism, while the 11th FFoC illustrates successive depths of these hierarchical relationships.

The first thing to understand about this is that the law of evolutionary phylogeny never permits one thing to "turn into" another fundamentally different thing, despite creationism's favorite straw-man fallacy. Evolution produces great variety via -usually subtle- changes in physical or chemical proportion. But every new species or genus, (etc.) that ever evolved was just a modified version of whatever its ancestors were, and obviously one cannot outgrow their ancestry. So evolution,at every level- is just a matter of incremental, superficial differences being compiled atop successive layers of fundamental similarities. These layers of similarity represent taxonomic clades which encompass all the descendants of that clade, which is why birds are still dinosaurs, and humans are still apes,according to character traits definitive of each of those groups.

The first comprehensive analysis of the 'tree of life' was Carl Linn's Systema Naturae in 1735. Although he didn't recognize his subgroups within larger collectives as having a 'branching' pattern, his original depiction of comparative morphology has since been enhanced, confirmed, and/or corrected by concordant examination of physiology, embryological development, and most recently, genetics. Had he been aware of paleontology, (which was not yet recognized by his time) then he might have figured things out before Darwin and Wallace did.

All creationists accept that taxonomy is essentially accurate, but they'll only concede that to a degree; because they insist that their god miraculously conjured a series of definitely different "kinds" of animals different from the others, because they were each specially created separate from each other. Creationists allow that each of these "kinds" have since diversified, but that no lineage could ever be traced beyond those original archetypes. However they're unable to identify what those 'kinds' are or how they could be recognized. So if evolution from common ancestry is not true, and some flavor of special creation of different (as yet unidentified "kinds") is true, then there would be some surface level(s) in a cladogram where you would accept an actual evolutionary ancestry. But there must also be subsequent levels in that twin-nested hierarchy where life-forms would no longer be the same "kind", and wouldn't be biologically related anymore. At that point, they would be magically created separate "kinds" and distinctly unique from those listed around it, as well as those apparently ancestral to it. So you would be able to show why different "created kinds" shouldn't be grouped together into any parent clades further implying an evolutionary ancestry. Throw away any ideas you have about the importance of any other argument you might be thinking about. None of them compare to this. If creationism is true of anything more than a single ancestor of all animal forms, (if not all eukaryotes) or if the concept of common ancestry is fundamentally mistaken, then there MUST be a point in the tree where taxonomy falls apart, where what we see as related to everything is really unrelated to anything else. And unless you're a Scientologist or a Raelian, that criteria must apply to other animals besides ourselves. So my challenge to you is this, find for me where that mystic division is.

I offer the following sets of questions to illustrate that challenge:

Is the short-tailed goanna related to the Perentie and all other Australian goannas?Are all Australian goannas related to each other and to African and Indonesian monitors?Are today's terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs?Are Varanoids related to any other Anguimorphs including snakes?Are any Anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos?Are all Scleroglossa also related to iguanids and other squamates?Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?Are all lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs? Are Lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids? Are all diapsids related to anapsids, or synapsid "reptiles" like dimetrodon?Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes?Are all amniotes related to each other and to all other tetrapods?Are all tetrapods related to each other and to all other vertebrates?........and so on.

Are Bengal tigers related to Burmese tigers and all other tiger species?Are all known species of tiger related to each other and all other panthers?Are all panthers related to felines, scimitar cats and all other felids?Are felids related to civets, bearcats, and other viverrids?Are felids and viverrids related to other families within Feloidea?Are all Feloidea related to any or all other members of the order, Carnivora?

Are mallards related to pochards, wood ducks, and muscovies?Are all ducks also related to geese and other Anseriformes?Are Anseriformes related to Galliforms and other neognaths?Are neognaths related to paleognaths?Are any extant birds related to Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Enantiornis, or other Euornithes?Are Euornithes related to Confusiousornis or Archeopteryx?Are early aves related to Microraptor and/or other non-avian dinosaurs?

Which of these are related? Which of these are created? Remember, if there is any validity to Creationism whatsoever, or if there is some critical flaw in the overall Theory of evolution from common ancestry, that flaw MUST be found here or it simply can't be anywhere else!

Remember also that the Systema Naturae was the work of a pre-Darwinian creationist who consequently had no idea how to explain the apparent relationships he had discovered. Carl Linn, (better known as Carolus Linneaus) had also labeled what he considered to be distinct races of humans, and he categorized them as white Europeans, black Africans, yellow Asians, red Americans, chimpanzees, and orangutans. Yes, he thought chimpanzees and orangutans were human. He recognized that humans were apes. He challenged his contemporaries to contest him on that point, and eventually he was vindicated. But he thought that all apes must also be human. Perhaps his belief in man's divine creation may have confused or concealed the actual implications of daughter groups within the umbrella of parental sets, now known as clades; at least where human(oid)s were concerned. Aristotle had already tried (and failed) to explain taxonomic hierarchies in the 4th Century BCE, and scientists like Buffon and Lamarck were still failing to explain it,right up until Charles Darwin finally provided the first concept that actually worked.

In previous messages to me, (included in this forum) you said that Darwin was in error about this. But your own comments on your YouTube channel say he was actually right,with the same provision that you should be able to account for in the preceding point. So on to my exhibit (B).

2. The evolutionary mechanisms of biodiversity provided by Darwin (et al) are verifiably applicable with profound explanative and predictive power such as no other would-be alternative argument ever presented could compete with, counter, or account for.

Darwin's initial explanation was little more than population mechanics,as guided by natural & sexual selection, things which everyone admits really do work. In addition, he predicted that traits were inherited via units of information which he could not yet describe. Gregor Mendel realized that he had discovered what Darwin was looking for, and Mendel even sent him a manuscript explaining that. Sadly Darwin couldn't read German and never realized what he had been given. After Darwin's death, Mendel's manuscript was found unopened in his desk. Since then, evolution became the modern [Mendelo-Darwinian] synthesis of population genetics amid dynamic environmental pressures. Other elements -such as genetic drift- have since been added, and doubtless more mechanisms will eventually be added also. Studies of HOX genes and burgeoning fields like 'Evo Devo' (indications of evolutionary development revealed in embryology) only build on the framework of Darwin's original design. A particularly good example is how paleontology and 'evo devo' combined to detail the origin of such a novel feature as the feather. This was something we previously couldn't explain; Now we can. We've traced the emergence of new traits and biological features across both geographic ranges and geologic time. Of course we've also seen new species emerge in real time, and we now understand how that happens.

A fact is a point of data that is either not in dispute, or if is, can be objectively proven to be true. And it is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary mechanisms and according to the laws of population genetics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in scientific literature and experiment demonstration. It is a fact that specific mutations such as additions, duplications, and transposons do increase genetic information and change it into 'new' information. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers exist which trace these lineages backwards over many generations and even join sister taxa within parent clades. It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that everything on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review. It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and that no other would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory.

Only accurate information has practical application. That's why understanding evolution has been such a boon in toxicology, virology, and many aspects of agriculture, where evolutionary mechanisms were exploited even before they were recognized. But the modern understanding of evolution accounts for all manner of realities which creationism can't even pretend to address, such as endogenous retroviruses, genetic orthologues, homologous or vestigial organs, recurrent atavisms, and fossil hominines as well as myriad other 'transitional species' which shouldn't even exist in a creationist construct.

Evolution explains why we have goosebumps, fingernails, impacted wisdom teeth, and maternal as well as fraternal bonds. Creationism explains nothing whatsoever. The absolute best they ever had were negative arguments which were already disproved both scientifically and in a court of law. Being fundamentally fallaceous, all they even could have are complaints about some detail they think hasn't yet been adequately accounted for, as if that could still override everything we already know to be true about it. Even if they could cite some facet not yet amply explained by the evolutionary model, it is not enough to criticize some temporary weakness in the status quo.

We can't teach both theories because there is only one, and has only ever been one. Before that, there were none. So in order to contend (as you do) that evolution is not the truest, best explanation for our physical characteristics, our deme, and our species, you have to provide an explanation of your own. In this case, you would not only need a model which accounts for everything evolution does and then some, but you need one that explains all that data better.

For the moment, I would say this criteria would be satisfied if you could just answer the challenge I already issued to you earlier: Produce a single verifiably accurate argument of evidence that is actually indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other actual science.

It should be obvious enough that "Goddidit" is not an explanation of anything. We need a mechanism, one that we can test somehow to show that it actually works. If you can't at least provide a potentially falsifiable alternative hypothesis with a specific prediction to determine, then you're only pleading that it musta happened by magic. Or you're making the excuse that maybe supernatural things might exist, which of course is unsupported and insubstantive. If that is your argument, then you must also answer an entirely different challenge, which is to name any instances in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations has ever improved our understanding of anything,instead of actually impeding all progress, as seems always to have been the case.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

Your first argument/evidence is the tree of life.You state that the biodiversity can best be explained by common ancestor of all animals (or some even think all life including plants even). Furthermore, you claim that creationists have no valid explanation for the biodiversity and consistent order of the tree of life.

Your second argument involves predictions made by evolution theory, being confirmed by observations in many fields in biology and other relevant fields.

I've just put it in my own words now. Correct me if I got anything wrong.To start with your second argument. This is the general idea of how science works. A theory is tested and it's predictions are tested. You've listed a bunch of data. I cannot accept this as one piece of evidence. I'm asking you to pick two of your best pieces of evidence. Together with your tree of life makes it three.

I do not intend, nor do I have the time to discuss each subject you've mentioned. So pick which you think, are the best.

I don't want to end up in an endless discussion, where you win some arguments and lose some and try to score some points by bringing more evidence and intimidate me with thousands of peer reviewed papers.

This first part of the debate has to be about three pieces of evidence you choose. Three, not four, not ten, not twenty.Do you understand?

If you want to argue that a murder didn't happen, then you can't expect me to ignore the body, the blood stains, signs of forced entry, or the obvious motive and documented history of violent aggression of a suspect with powder burns and fingerprints on the smoking gun which matches ballistics reports, and then pretend that the lack of eyewitnesses or genetic evidence could possibly raise sufficient doubt that the event ever happened at all. So don't complain that I explained my position too clearly. You said that I had to respond with honesty, reason and facts, and that my evidence had to be decisive as well as complete, and it is,accordingly.

If discerning the truth really mattered to you, then it wouldn't how many examples I provided. You'd be compelled to consider them all,before you decided whether you should accept or refute them. But, as I have already explained, the context of your challenge didn't really require three exhibits of evidence. I only needed two, so I chose only two. If you need them simplified for you, then allow me to paraphrase them and clarify both in a couple different ways.

Your position is that Darwin was wrong, and that we don't share a common ancestor with other animals. That's two claims, not three. So I don't need more than two counter arguments to refute you.

My first evidence is the phylogenetic "tree of life".

This is the big one, the one noone could study in detail and still remain a creationist, because the deeper you delve into it, the more it proves itself. Although Cladistic taxonomy presents the single most compelling evidence evolution could ever want, it is a field that is understood by surprisingly few,even among scientists. Your challenge here is two-fold: Not only do you need to overturn centuries of data independently compiled and corroborated by myriad means of biological classification from Linnaeus on down, but,as a scientist- you must also take the next step, which no creationist predecessor ever has: You can't just make up excuses to ignore or dismiss the evidence against you; You actually have to produce evidence to support you too!

To clarify that point, I must remind you that the creationist position demands that there be some number of "created kinds" which are not part of any ancestral clade. It also requires that every "kind" of life appeared abruptly, and simultaneously. Thus it falls before you to identify at least a few different "kinds" (or baramins, or whatever you want to call them) which science would otherwise define as closely-related, but which you can show to be specially-created. The common mythology in this case requires that this be demonstrated at least twice, once for the initial creation of life, and another concordant one for "the flood",if you believe in that sort of thing. Obviously either way these creations should not be indistinguishable from sibling taxa sharing any continuing series of 'parent' clades. So it also falls upon you to show why these clades are illusory. Seriously you cannot possibly expect to do less than that if you intend to adequately refute this to anyone's satisfaction.

You said that faith doesn't count as evidence, and that you only wanted to talk about testable theories. Well, I couldn't agree more. So my second evidence is that the theory of evolution,is factual and functional.

What was discovered by Darwin, and further explored and refined by countless others is the only explanation of biodiversity which has actually been shown to work. You said it didn't. Therefore you have to show how it doesn't. That's going to be somewhat difficult to do since you already contradicted yourself in saying that it did.

But of course its worse than that. You can't just bask in the clear blue skies in the eye of the hurricane and ignore everything else. You have to replace the existing explanation with a better one.

I read somewhere that in order to properly falsify a theory, one has to present predictions of at least two other theories. But in the case of biodiversity, there aren't two other theories, and never has been. Before Darwin came along, there was no theory at all; not a working one at least. Darwinian evolution immediately trumped Aristotelian and Lamarckian models, because his was the only explanation ever to provide an actual mechanism, the very first mechanism which actually does account for how species really do diversify. His was the first theory to pass any test, and thus far it has passed them all, as I have already shown you. Creationism offers no explanation for anything at all, not even for why we have fingernails, or goose bumps, or why chickens have scaly feet, why dogs have dew claws, or why the mongoose has its eye enclosed in bone, but civets do not. Creationists can't explain about anything, and they don't even try to. But evolution explains millions of novelties which no other idea ever conjured by men could ever account for. So you obviously can't hope to say that Darwin was wrong if you can't even come up with anything more than Lamarck didn't. Right? So what is your theory? And how do we test it?

Just to clarify a bit further, Sir Richard Owen proposed the notion of 'archetypes', his idea of the basic designs used by a god. That concept failed, but that is essentially the position you're going to have to adopt. As a creationist, I don't think you have any other choice. Owen eventually became a theistic evolutionist, which may be your only other option.

To simply this even more, I showed proof that you're a monkey, and I showed the only explanation ever provided which can account for that,or anything else wee see in biology. There certainly has never been any other explanation of biodiversity. So you have to show both a more correct taxonomy and a corrected theory. Because that is the only way you can refute my two points of evidence. Understand?

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

If you cannot agree to the terms we first set out, then this debates ends now.I have no problem discussing all evidence with anybody, after we finish this debate.

Three pieces of evidence.You cannot argue that evolution is a proven fact (which is only a statement) and let that be your evidence (it is not evidence; it is a statement), which is supported by a whole list of evidence.Right now you are basicly saying that three of the best pieces of evidences itself is not good enough and they need the support of all others. This is such a known evolutionists tactic, while all their evidence is basicly useless, they try to impress and intimidate by the sheer amount of it.

I ask you again, do you have three pieces of evidence that by themselves strongly support evolution over other theories?

You are like a child saying that the leaves in a tree in your garden are always green. You go on by saying that you studied a leaf for a month and it remaind green. But wait! That's not all of it. You've got more evidence. You studied another leaf, and that too remained green during the whole month. But that's still not all. You studied a whole branch, and all the leaves on the branch remained green during the whole month.

Now, I'm not gonna sit here for three years and point out the flaws in each of your list of evidence. Give me your best three.If you don't want to apply to this, then you should have said so before we started this debate.

If you cannot agree to the terms we first set out, then this debates ends now.

I have already agreed to your terms, and am still keeping with them. Hopefully you will too.

You said each of my arguments should be accurate and decisive, and they certainly are. You also said faith did not count as evidence, and that you only wanted to talk about testable theories. But then you said Darwin was wrong. So what evidence-based testable theory do you have that you think can trump the evolutionary process of natural & sexual selection, etc.?

I ask you again, do you have three pieces of evidence that by themselves strongly support evolution over other theories?

Yes, but I'm only going to use two, and one of them is the fact that there are no other theories.

See, whenever I challenge creationists, I usually offer to prove,to their satisfaction- that we are evolved apes, and that biological evolution is the truest best explanation there is for the origin and diversity of species because it is the only account with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and because it is the only option which provides substantial practical application in the real world; which is why we have billion-dollar agricultural and biotech industries dependant on its accuracy.

That doesn't mean that it is absolutely or completely true. There might still be flaws in the current theory of evolution, I don't know. If you could find one, would that be enough to disprove the whole thing? Probably not anymore, no. Look at Dalton's model of the atom. We know that's flawed! But we still teach it anyway, because it's accurate enough that it helps us understand how to work in chemistry successfully. Evolution affords the same benefit in many fields of biology, several of which are life-saving.

Now, if we summarize the creationists' contention against evolution as much as can be, we see that, at the very least, you are arguing for a new phylogeny and a new process. So those are the two things I chose. I have one of each, and both of mine have already been proven to work. Do yours? Do you even have either one?

Let me put it another way: You share more biological traits in common with your siblings than you do with your cousins due to the recent ancestors you share with them, your parents. Likewise, you share more in common with those in your extended family than you do with neighbors and classmates, etc., people you do not recognize as part of your biological family. Getting further removed, we see that long-isolated cultures bear particular physical traits which are not typical of other demes, and you must surely recognize that despite all these distinct characteristics, all people descend from what I think you would agree is a common ancestor. Deeper down, we've seen that new breeds of dogs, cattle, corn, etc. have come about via artificial selection, and new sub-species have occurred via natural selection, in both cases, stemming from common ancestry, be that hundreds of breeds of dogs stemming from wolves, or dozens of commercial bovines coming from the extinct European Aurochs. Do you accept that most or all of this is true? Due you accept that these are all examples of descent with inherent modification? If not, do you have any OTHER explanation? If not, then that is my evidence!

You can have two perspectives account for the same facts, but evidence is a set of facts that are supported or indicative of only one available scenario over any other. That means you can't have two different interpretations of the same evidence, because it can't even be evidence if it fits with both positions.

So if you can't come up with a single potentially falsifiable hypothesis, and can offer no other demonstrable process besides 'descent with inherent modification', you can't prove that natural selection doesn't work, and neither can you propose even one non-evolutionary mechanism, nothing with any predictive ability, much less one which explains any aspect of the emergence or mutability of character traits or the diversification of species, and that anything you do propose will never meet even one of the criteria required of a theory, then simply concede each of these points honorably, as you practically have already -even before we began.

If you do concede each of these points, (and what choice do you have?) then I'll be satisfied that I have met my goal, and you'll only have to refute the one exhibit of mine that you actually did accept, that being the phylogenetic tree. So instead of having to refute three lines of overwhelming evidence against you, you'll only have to try and counter one.

I have to warn you though, the cladistic tree of life is an efficient creationist converter, and NOT your area of expertise. Sometimes even zoologists and paleontologists need help with this, so you will require a few lessons just to understand what I'm even talking about. Once you do understand it, you'll never call yourself a creationist again.

You are like a child"¦

Again with the insults. Why do creationists always resort to that so quickly?

Is this what you call honesty?

And again you question my honor. Creationists are masters of irony!

I doubt you will understand this, but if I was wrong, I would want to know that, and I would thank you for correcting me. But that is not your way. You have already decided -in advance- that you are going to summarily reject any and all evidence I have to show you,even when you can't even guess what it is, no matter how correct it might turn out to be. I can't do that. As silly as your position is,at every level- I still have to consider your arguments before I decide whether I could or should reject them. That's because truth matters to me more than it does to you. That's why you have faith and apologetics while I have experiments and peer review.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

You are basically saying that evolution is a proven fact, and that's your argument.

But that's the topic of debate, whether evolution has been proven factually true. You cannot make the debate topic your argument or evidence, and call it one huge piece of evidence.

We might as well go into an open debate with no limitations.

Very well, I can at least address your tree of life argument. We'll see where you want to go next from there.

Your view:1. Tree of life is divers.2. Tree of life is consistent.3. Being divers and consistent can only be explained by evolution.

You provide no measurement of how divers and how consistent it has to be in order for it to be only explainable by evolution. But that's alright.You do post some examples of inconsistencies you'd expect if evolution were not true.

1. DiversityWhat you've managed to do, is reject a theory of a limited uncreative god who cannot produce this level of biodiversity. Yet the common view of god is an infinite, creative and powerful god.Just look at what kind of diversity we have in clothes. We've got all kinds of shoes, and many shapes in between other shapes and colors in between other colors. If you wear your clothes long enough, it can get damaged, stretched, shrinked, torn, stained, colors get faded. You can line them all up and see how they gradually changed. But no one will say that if you wear a scarf long enough, it can become anything.I'm not saying that you should not try to come up with a theory and test it. It's just that diversity may very well support evolution, but it supports many other theories as well. So what good is it?

2. ConsistencyYes, the tree of life is consistent, whatever you mean by this. Consistent with what? It has been changed several times. And you may say tt has been improved, made more consistent.Two things I have to comment on this. One: for you to exclude all other theories, you have to rule out a god who is able to be consistent in creation. And two: of course it is consistent. We've put it into a consistent order. What else do you expect? You can put all types of cloths in a consistent tree. In fact, you can build a consistent tree of any group of items. It's called hierarchical analysis, and it's a common tool in science. Question is: you got your theory. How do you test it? Being consistent by itself means absolutely nothing.

So you can make predictions. Big deal. Where does a white nike jacket fit in an hierarchical sorted tree of types of clothes? Ar such questions really relevant?You have your theory. You've build a consistent tree. But how have you tested your theory?It's not like, oh let us see, if we determine the level of diversity and consistency and it is above some bench mark, then it has to be a good theory.Come on, I want to see tests. If you don't have tests, then why do you call it science?

I will bring data and test your theory and proof it is inconsistent with the data, when I'm done with your arguments.

You are basically saying that evolution is a proven fact, and that's your argument.

No I'm not. You're arguing that the process of evolution is wrong, and so is the implied phylogeny. That means you have to propose another phylogeny and another process to put in their place. You don't have either one, but you need both!

But that's the topic of debate, whether evolution has been proven factually true.

Then the debate is already over. Because other than the evolutionary mechanisms of selective pressures acting on frequent mutations (average of 128 per zygote in humans) occurring throughout reproductive populations, is there any other non-evolutionary explanation for any aspect of biodiversity?

To prove my point, answer the following questions with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

1. Can you present a testable and potentially falsifiable hypothesis for creationism? 2. Can you prove that natural selection does not work? [You've already answered this one; No]3. Can you propose anything other than an exclusively evolutionary mechanism to explain any aspect of the emergence or mutability of character traits? 4. Can you offer any other demonstrable process besides 'descent with inherent modification' to explain either the origin or diversification of species?

When you admitted that natural selection actually does work, you vindicated Darwin's theory, and failed in the claim that he was "in error". That's one down, three to go. So if the answer to any of the remaining questions above is 'yes', then we still have something to debate about. Otherwise it is already over, and I obviously win -according to the rules you yourself laid out.

You cannot make the debate topic your argument or evidence, and call it one huge piece of evidence.

Imagine you're at a conference where someone is promoting his explanation for a particular phenomenon, one which has never been adequately explained before. And you stand up and shout "That's the wrong answer". Now every head has turned to you. Are any of them going to be satisfied with that? Not likely, because now they are all expecting you to provide the RIGHT answer. So what is it already? Creationists don't have one, and can't provide one, and THAT is my evidence.

Since you seem have some problem comprehending this, let me illustrate it for you one more time.

My evidence is, that while creationists want to believe that evolution doesn't work, they begrudgingly admit that it actually does work, and they have to use it in practical application because there isn't any other option, certainly not another one that works. My evidence is that creationists admit that each of the mechanisms and processes of evolution actually are factual and functional. You also admit that there is no other explanation,apart from your faith in miracles, and you already admitted that faith doesn't count as evidence. You said you only wanted to talk about testable theories. Now you're presenting un-testable speculation instead, based only on faith, and you criticize me for following the rules you set, but which you will not adhere to yourself.

I can at least address your tree of life argument.

No, you apparently can't, not without a lengthy introductory primer. I obviously way overestimated you.

Your view:1. Tree of life is divers.2. Tree of life is consistent.3. Being divers and consistent can only be explained by evolution.

I never said the tree of life was necessarily diverse or consistent. You seem to have imagined that part. Otherwise your third point would be correct. Is it your view that phylogeny can be explained some other way? Because you seem to be hesitant to propose any other way, and have chosen to criticize me whenever I ask for one.

You provide no measurement of how divers and how consistent it has to be in order for it to be only explainable by evolution.

Neither did I say that diversity nor consistency were even criteria. You really need to read more carefully, especially when you want to pretend that you can refute topics you obviously still don't know anything at all about. Go back and watch the videos of mine that I already linked for you in preceding posts. They'll give you an idea what my view really is.

You do post some examples of inconsistencies you'd expect if evolution were not true.

Many examples leap to mind, all of them from popular fiction. Practically every mythical animal men have ever imagined immediately violates taxonomy. My favorite among them are vertebrate hexapods. I mean, if we found a jackalope, that is pretty close to reasonable, and I could accept that. But Odin's six-legged horse is impossible according to the laws of evolution. You can have conjoined and partially-absorbed twins, and you could certainly have mutations to produce too many legs. We've seen that too. But whether we're talking about six legs [Slepnir], or four legs and two arms [centaurs] four legs and two wings [dragons] or two legs, two arms, and two wings [demons] that third set of limbs couldn't be fully functional without a profound revision of the fundamental tetrapod skeletal and muscular structures. Evolution doesn't work that way, and that's just too extreme for any single birth or reasonable sequence of generations with compiled mutations. Such a development would require enormous strides far beyond anything evolution has ever produced, and it would have to be deliberately guided as it is very difficult to imagine how such enhancements wouldn't be continually detrimental all that time.

It is possible for chickens to have scales and for some mammals to have scales, because both are derived from a form commonly referred to as 'reptiles'. But it is not possible for mammals to have feathers, nor to simply 'turn on' any gene that could produce feathers. So griffins, angels, and the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz are all impossible according to evolution. God could make anything he wants -any way he wants- but just one pegasus would immediately reduce evolution to horsefeathers.

I have many other examples if you're interested, and I'm sure I'll have to explain many of them before we can proceed. The summary of that is that creationism has no rules whatsoever, but evolution does, they're very strict, and absolutely every form of life known to exist on this planet abides by them.

1. DiversityWhat you've managed to do, is reject a theory of a limited uncreative god who cannot produce this level of biodiversity.

I've never even heard of such an idea. How can I reject a theory that never existed and was never proposed?

Yet the common view of god is an infinite, creative and powerful god.

Yes, that wholly unsubstantiated and fanciful notion is that of an anthropomorphic djinn who somehow controls absolutely everything that ever happens with inexplicable magic, everything including (according to millions of his devotees) the natural processes of evolution. Since that fact renders your point irrelevant, can we get away from the empty assertions of faith and get back to testable theories now, Phi?

Just look at what kind of diversity we have in clothes. We've got all kinds of shoes, and many shapes in between other shapes and colors in between other colors. If you wear your clothes long enough, it can get damaged, stretched, shrinked, torn, stained, colors get faded. You can line them all up and see how they gradually changed. But no one will say that if you wear a scarf long enough, it can become anything.

Wow. I really overestimated you! When you bragged that you were smarter than some of the most brilliant minds in history, I expected a whole lot better than this! Ironically creationists never fail to disappoint.

Phi, does someone create your clothes? Or do your clothes reproduce themselves? Can you actually prove that your clothes really do have an ancestral phylogeny? Because we can do that with living things. That's why your analogy doesn't work.

I'm not saying that you should not try to come up with a theory and test it. It's just that diversity may very well support evolution, but it supports many other theories as well.

What other theory?

-Before you answer that, post the definition of a scientific theory. Then post your answer right beneath it.

And I have to add that the fact that you are an ape, (specifically a great ape) a monkey, (specifically an Old World monkey) as well as a Haplorhine primate, archontid eutherian mammal, and every other clade which should only apply in an evolutionary phylogeny -does not support, and cannot be accounted for- by any other alternative explanation.

2. ConsistencyYes, the tree of life is consistent, whatever you mean by this.

What did I ever say about consistency? Are you confusing me with someone else? Or are you imagining conversations you're not really having? Why not respond to the challenges I really issued to you?

for you to exclude all other theories, you have to rule out a god who is able to be consistent in creation.

Wrong. For me to exclude other theories, there have to BE other theories.

Let me help you with this: I have a college-level chemistry text which says "A theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of experimental observations and the laws that are based on them. Theories can also be usued to predict related phenomena, so theories are constantly being tested. If a theory is disproved by experiment, then it must be discarded or modified so that it becomes consistent with experimental observations."

This is from an undergraduate textbook,in Texas, and you have two masters degrees?! How is it you still don't know what a theory is? Why doesn't any creationist ever know what a theory is?

Question is: you got your theory. How do you test it?

I'll be happy to show you when you're ready.

So you can make predictions. Big deal.

Wow! I really overestimated you! How else would you test a theory? Oh, I forgot, you wouldn't. You would just choose whether or not to believe it. I'm the one who puts my beliefs to the test, because that's what you have to do in order to improve your understanding.

Where does a white nike jacket fit in an hierarchical sorted tree of types of clothes? Ar such questions really relevant?

How is it possible to construct a hierarchical sorted tree of types of clothes?

You have your theory. You've build a consistent tree. But how have you tested your theory?

I'm trying to show you, but you keep changing the subject.

Come on, I want to see tests. If you don't have tests, then why do you call it science?

I DO have tests, and if you want to see them, go back and look at where I posted them for you before.

I will bring data and test your theory and proof it is inconsistent with the data, when I'm done with your arguments.

Anyone can find some trivial anomaly and misrepresent it as meaning something more than it does. I'm trying to get you to see something bigger, so that you can understand why it is indisputably true. But you'll have to read for comprehension. Don't attribute to me comments I never made. And quit changing your own rules to suit a doomed argument.

You're nowhere near as clever as you boasted being, and no one could even be clever enough to defend your claims and still win. You just can't win this one if your position is wrong. If your beliefs were actually true, then what I challenged you to do would certainly be easy enough, and you would have done it already. But because your perspective is absolutely wrong -and wilfully blind to that fact, and you have no idea what you're even talking about, then all you can do is squirm and make mental notes so that next time you'll write loopholes into your rules so that you can still get out of admitting total failure.

Do try to put some thought into your next reply. There's no hurry, because I'm very busy, and may not be able to post here again for a few days.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

You're arguing that the process of evolution is wrong, and so is the implied phylogeny.

Uhm, there is no right or wrong in a constructed hierarchical tree of life. But there are different theories on how things are related. I'm not arguing against our technique of hierarchical analysis. I'm arguing against the way you jump to conclusions and impose a relation of common ancestry. It's a theory that is not confirmed by the tree itself. And I'm still waiting for evidence for this theory.

Do you think a consistent tree proves common ancestry? How then? You can build consistent trees out of any group of whatever, and see relations, which can be either real relations or apparent relations. You think there are relations of common ancestry in the tree of life. That's fine. But you're gonna have to do better and show me tests and data to convince me..

Because other than the evolutionary mechanisms of selective pressures acting on frequent mutations (average of 128 per zygote in humans) occurring throughout reproductive populations, is there any other non-evolutionary explanation for any aspect of biodiversity?

You think you have a strong case, but what you are repeatedly doing is stating that there are no other theories, or other theories are wrong.The only evidence that you strongly and repeatedly present, is that other theories fail.The strength of your evolution theory seems to rely very much on the weakness of other theories. Doesn't sound like a strong theory to me.But even when you have not yet found an explanation for something, it does not mean that it is not there. We for long have had no explanation of the force of gravity, and still the depths of this force (of what is actually driving it and pulling mass together) is not fully known. But we can assume that gravity is there, and that there must be some cause, which we do not yet know.So if you prefer to have a wrong explanation over having no natural explanation at all, then evolution theory is for you.

1. Can you present a testable and potentially falsifiable hypothesis for creationism?

I don't see how we can test creation today (somewhat similar to bio-genesis, which we are trying hard to test), but we can test it's predictions, like we test predictions of every scientific theory. Creation predicts for one, that reptiles have always been reptiles and never transformed into mammals over generations. This can be tested.

2. Can you prove that natural selection does not work?

I do not argue against natural selection. It is simply the survival of the fittest or most adapted, as evolutionist call often call it. It happens all the time. No problem here.

3. Can you propose anything other than an exclusively evolutionary mechanism to explain any aspect of the emergence or mutability of character traits?

What do you mean by emergence? Genes are full of information for character traits. And genes get mixed by the way life reproduces itself with offspring. This produces a diversity of chromosome sets. No two siblings are the same in genetics, except for identical twins.

4. Can you offer any other demonstrable process besides 'descent with inherent modification' to explain either the origin or diversification of species?

There are things that cannot be measured. We cannot measure god or it's presence. We therefor cannot assume there is a god, nor can we rule out the existence of a god. Objective science does not assume anything.Example of bogus theories as a result of assumption:We can tell are children how they came to be, through conception and birth in their mothers womb. They can reject it and think for themselves and try to come up with a theory of a bunch of cells growing, without the need of a mother's womb. They can actually manage to grow a bunch of cells, and think they have found a theory that holds. So they have evidence for it, with demonstrable methods. Why are they wrong then?They are wrong by insisting on an explanation, ruling out the need of a mother from the very start.

Remember this: I'm arguing against you ruling out a god and you ruling out creation. Sure, if you do that, then who needs testing of evolution theory? You've already ruled out everything else!

When you admitted that natural selection actually does work, you vindicated Darwin's theory, and failed in the claim that he was "in error".

Darwin was in error in overestimating the creative power of mutation and selection. Natural selection happens every day in nature. Evolution from reptile species to mammal species over time, never happened. This is what I will proof, when it is my turn to present evidence.

Imagine you're at a conference where someone is promoting his explanation for a particular phenomenon, one which has never been adequately explained before. And you stand up and shout "That's the wrong answer". Now every head has turned to you. Are any of them going to be satisfied with that? Not likely, because now they are all expecting you to provide the RIGHT answer. So what is it already? Creationists don't have one, and can't provide one, and THAT is my evidence.

Again you try to make a strong case, by ruling out other theories. But your case itself is not strong. If it was, you would be showing me evidence of it already, and I'm still waiting.

I never said the tree of life was necessarily diverse or consistent. You seem to have imagined that part. Otherwise your third point would be correct. Is it your view that phylogeny can be explained some other way? Because you seem to be hesitant to propose any other way, and have chosen to criticize me whenever I ask for one.

What are you saying then? What part of the tree proves evolution. Phylogeny? You can find similarities, and call it relation, but you have yet to test what causes the similarities. You have a theory for this. I'm asking you to present me with evidence for this theory of yours. You cannot just assume a relationship based on an hierarchical ordering. Unless you are a scientist jumping to conclusions, without proposing a way to test it.

Neither did I say that diversity nor consistency were even criteria.

Well these are the things you mentioned. What are your criteria then, if not diversity and not consistency? Or is it just a story you wanted me to read without any evidence presented?

Many examples leap to mind, all of them from popular fiction. Practically every mythical animal men have ever imagined immediately violates taxonomy. My favorite among them are vertebrate hexapods. I mean, if we found a jackalope, that is pretty close to reasonable, and I could accept that. ...

Alright, finding those would destroy your theory perhaps. I rather think you'd just adjust your theory to incorporate these phenomena and add another branch to your tree.Anyway, not finding these things, does not yet mean that all came by evolution. You are so good at jumping to conclusions and then expect others to follow you, and call them dishonest if they don't.This won't work on me. You'll have to do better.No jackalope means evolution is true? I don't think so. Just wait till we test the data with what we do find.

I've never even heard of such an idea. How can I reject a theory that never existed and was never proposed?

You are proposing it yourself, saying if all life was created, then it would have been created this and that way, and that's how you are arguing against creationists. Posing a straw man creation theory and dispose of it.

Wow. I really overestimated you! When you bragged that you were smarter than some of the most brilliant minds in history, I expected a whole lot better than this! Ironically creationists never fail to disappoint.

Phi, does someone create your clothes? Or do your clothes reproduce themselves? Can you actually prove that your clothes really do have an ancestral phylogeny? Because we can do that with living things. That's why your analogy doesn't work.

Point is, having a consistent hierarchical order does not proof a relation. Or do you think it does? Go ahead and tell me then. Do you, or do you not believe that having a consistent tree proves a relation of common predecessor?If hierarchical order does not proof a common predecessor in general, how do you justify applying it to the hierarchical tree of life as proof of a common ancestral relationship?

-Before you answer that, post the definition of a scientific theory. Then post your answer right beneath it.

A scientific theory can be tested, or at least it's predictions (not a definition, but this is what is relevant for now). But a theory doesn't even necessarily have to be "scientific", in order to be able to test it (or it's predictions) with scientific methods.

And I have to add that the fact that you are an ape, (specifically a great ape) a monkey, (specifically an Old World monkey) ...

This depends on your world view. You are looking at is from an evolutionists point of view. People use words and put different meaning in words in different contexts. In evolutionary context, we are apes. Many people don't look at ourselves from that context. But also many people do.Your point is ...

What did I ever say about consistency? Are you confusing me with someone else? Or are you imagining conversations you're not really having? Why not respond to the challenges I really issued to you?

Well then you hardly said anything. Just challenging me with questions, but no evidence.

This is from an undergraduate textbook,in Texas, and you have two masters degrees?! How is it you still don't know what a theory is? Why doesn't any creationist ever know what a theory is?

Alright, you've posted a definition of theory. That still does not prove evolution is how all life came to be as it is today.

Wow! I really overestimated you! How else would you test a theory? Oh, I forgot, you wouldn't. You would just choose whether or not to believe it. I'm the one who puts my beliefs to the test, because that's what you have to do in order to improve your understanding.

I was referring to your list of questions about relationships. Those predictions can be made even without a tree.

How is it possible to construct a hierarchical sorted tree of types of clothes?

Here's just one of the many possibilities. You get different kinds of consistencies depending on your order of criteria.

Anyone can find some trivial anomaly and misrepresent it as meaning something more than it does. I'm trying to get you to see something bigger, so that you can understand why it is indisputably true. But you'll have to read for comprehension. Don't attribute to me comments I never made. And quit changing your own rules to suit a doomed argument.

Yes, well I'm trying to comment on what you write. But you are jumping to conclusions, makes it hard to follow. I'll try my best, that's all I can do.A hierarchical tree of life proves evolution? How then?What exactly is your line of reasoning? How is the hierarchical tree evidence? If it's not diversity and not consistency or those two and other things combined and not by merely attacking and discrediting creation? What is your positive evidence for evolution? You can fit in a tiger, is that it?

P.S.If you can't comment within 24 hours, then you could post something like "Aron will comment later", if you want to keep the debate ongoing and prevent the debate from closing. Good idea?

Despite your errors in reading comprehension, I never mentioned the words 'diverse' nor 'consistent' in any descriptive of the phylogenetic tree. Cladistic taxonomy is both of these things, but that's not why it is compelling. Understanding the implications of it run much deeper than that. I tried to illustrate this for you in the challenge that you have thus far ignored. Since you refused to look at the evidence I tried to show you before, then you will need a guided introduction. One is coming.

You think there are relations of common ancestry in the tree of life. That's fine. But you're gonna have to do better and show me tests and data to convince me..

OK. What would convince you?

Whenever I have asked that in the past, the answer I get has always been something evolution would never permit, like cats giving birth to dogs, or a tree turning into a giraffe, or molecules spontaneously assembling themselves into a man. The answer has never been anything any educated person could reasonably expect or suspect that evolution might actually produce. Obviously the challenge is always unrealistic because creationists do not want to risk finding out that I might be right. In a sense, their faith means never having to admit when they're wrong.

In my many years' experience debating creationists, I have learned that you cannot simply explain anything to them, because they don't intend to listen. They've already decided,before they've even heard it- that whatever it is, it's going to be wrong. They've been conditioned to believe that it HAS to be wrong. So any totality of arguments or facts I could ever present will not be considered and certainly won't be explored, but will instead be blithely dismissed as a string of mere coincidences. Any and all evidence can be summarily rejected simply by saying "that doesn't prove anything". And when challenged to provide any explanation -other than those of natural science, all they can say is "Goddidit". When challenged on details, the best you can expect to get is "that's the way Goddidit". And anything scientists cannot explain -yet- is somehow proof that Goddidit,at least in the minds of indoctrinated believers.

All this can be done thoughtlessly, without any consideration of anything I may say. One Christian actually described it to me as "steeling the mind", so that one's belief will not be influenced for any reason. Several of them have described the act of closing their minds as "putting on the armor of God". If my logic can penetrate these deliberately closed minds, they sometimes say that it is only the devil arguing through me. So I've learned that the only way to get through to them is to involve them in the analytical process step-by-step. This can only be done with a series of questions, because if they have to provide the answers themselves, then they cannot simply fall back on their pre-programmed knee-jerk rejections, and they'll be forced to consider what I'm trying to tell them. It's not enough to show them the evidence. You have to make them think about it.

That's what I tried to do when I explained how to test creation within the phylogenetic tree, and when I pointed out that evolution is a working theory, and that it is the only one. You [creationists] argue that "evolution doesn't explain everything" -as if that meant that it doesn't explain anything; and you have to be cornered in order to confess that it actually does explain a whole lot more than you wanted to admit.

I know, you insist that evolution must be wrong, and that Darwin was wrong. But despite that, you still admitted that you can't explain any aspect of the emergence or mutability of character traits, except by citing exclusively evolutionary mechanisms. You concede that natural selection really does work, and that you can't offer any demonstrable process other than 'descent with inherent modification' to explain either the origin or diversification of species. You even submitted that there is not one explanation for any element of biodiversity,other than evolution. And we both already know that I can provide thousands of traits which evolution really does explain -and which creationism cannot even pretend to address.

I know you think evolution has some critical flaw in it, but you failed to point out what it is. Neither could you show how to correct it to make the theory work, or what to replace that theory with. We should always expect that every theory must certainly have some flaws in it, even if we don't yet know what they are. But even if we already do know what those flaws are, I would still rather have a model that we can actually prove really does work -despite those flaws, than not to have any functional theory at all.

As I explained to you before, in all these debates, I like to prove that evolution is the best explanation of biodiversity there is, because it is the only one with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and most importantly because it is testable and verifiably accurate. So thank you for conceding that point.

I'm not playing games here. This isn't just about 'winning or losing points' like you thought it was; It's about proving a point! Winning against a creationist is a foregone conclusion. It's not possible to lose. The only trick is getting the creationist to realize that he's lost, and better still, to understand WHY he lost. So I might not claim victory until I'm satisfied that you do.

We for long have had no explanation of the force of gravity, and still the depths of this force (of what is actually driving it and pulling mass together) is not fully known. But we can assume that gravity is there, and that there must be some cause, which we do not yet know.

I have two questions about this, just for the record: (1) Why have you ruled out supernatural causes? (2) If you threw a bowling ball into the air,and it didn't fall down, but just drifted away like a day-old helium balloon. Obviously you wouldn't be able to explain that, but would that disprove the theory of gravity? It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Newton's or Einstein's or anyone else's concept at this point. Would that one instance of your inexplicable floating ball disprove the fact that gravity still exists, regardless of anyone's attempts to explain it?

I don't see how we can test creation today

I do, and I already explained that to you. But you ignored it for obvious reasons. You know it would work too. That's why you refused to try it. But I'm not going to let you off that easy.

we can test it's predictions, like we test predictions of every scientific theory.

Look how much you've learned about the fundamental basics of science since this debate began. I'm curious how you didn't know this before you got your second masters degree?

Creation predicts for one, that reptiles have always been reptiles and never transformed into mammals over generations. This can be tested.

Yes it can. Let's do it, shall we?

Look at this comparison between -what you would call- 'reptiles' ...........and mammals

These each look like truly distinct categories, don't they? If you had actually taken my challenge to find 'created kinds' in the phylogenetic tree, and assuming that 'reptile' is one 'kind' and 'mammal' is another, then this is exactly the sort of thing you should expect to find. All the different species of snakes & lizards, crocodilians, pterosaurs & dinosaurs -should nest neatly into the 'reptile' side, while all the cats, bats, rats, & wombats, elephants, cattle, monkeys and manatees -should all nest into the 'mammal' side. And we should expect to find another completely different template for birds. But that would only be if each of these was an archetypal design from all which all subsequent forms diverged -according to the usual laws applied by an evolutionary phylogeny.

Of course we know that birds, reptiles, and mammals are each too broad a category for you, assuming you believe in the Bible, which already has snakes separate from other reptiles, cattle separate from other mammals, and birds are subdivided into at least three or four different kinds -within 'sorts' (whatever that is). Never-the-less, you get the idea.

If you really believed that creationism was actually true, then you would have taken my challenge to identify the original created archetypes in the phylogenetic tree. And if creationism actually was true, I would have found them already! I've told you before -and on some level I'm sure you must agree- that if God miraculously conjured different kinds of animals which then went on to diversify "each after his own kind" then an accurate examination of taxonomy would HAVE to reveal something like this. But you didn't look for it, because you already know it isn't there.

Obviously that's not what we see in real life. For example, dinosaurs don't really fit into the reptile template, (being warm-blooded) and birds actually fit into the clade of dinosaurs. I explain this in my video on the 9th FFoC.

But worse than that, it turns out that the "stem reptiles" [cotylosaurs] represented in column above, actually blend into modern mammals. This transition is illustrated by a couple dozen fossil forms, most of which are described in detail in zoologist, Kathleen Hunt's treatise on Transitional Vertebrate Fossils. Read it. She describes each subtle deviation -in a nested hierarchy, such as cannot be done with non-living things like clothes.

The first of these fossils was thought to be a chimera. But after observing several, even the creationist paleontologist, Sir Richard Owen was convinced that a lineage of 'reptiles' converged to a mammalian shape.

The origin of true mammals from a plethora of "mammal-like reptiles" looks a bit like this:

The transition evidently took roughly 140 million years, as indicated by the earliest fossils, and completed with the deactivation of the last of our 'egg-laying' genes between 30 and 70 million years ago, according to PLoS Biology.

So yeah, 'reptiles' evidently DID evolve into mammals. You're done.

As for disproving creationism otherwise, try as you might (though you obviously won't) you will never find any created kinds evident in the fossil record, where you certainly would -easily- if your beliefs were correct. What will find instead are several successive series of hundreds of transitional species, none of which should even exist in your view; But in reality they're there!

That shouldn't come as a big surprise either. I mean, we've already proven -conclusively- that there was never any global flood, and that languages and cultures were already where they are many centuries before Hammurabi built the Tower of Babel-on [originally dedicated to the pagan god, Marduk]. I can't really think of any testable aspect of creationism that hasn't been disproved already.

There are things that cannot be measured. We cannot measure god or it's presence. We therefor cannot assume there is a god, nor can we rule out the existence of a god. Objective science does not assume anything.

Agreed. Science never 'rules out' anything that hasn't yet been, or can never be disproved. There is only what is supported by evidence, and what is not. And what is not supported therefore does not warrant serious consideration. So unless otherwise indicated, we cannot 'jump to the conclusion' that things like gods actually exist or that they must really be responsible for anything. It would be nothing less than dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, and we certainly can't discard mechanisms which we know and can show to actually be working, and supplant them with what amounts to nothing more than magic -literally- with no testable mechanism whatsoever -especially when such things are asserted for no reason! [lacking positively indicative evidence].

Remember this: I'm arguing against you ruling out a god and you ruling out creation. Sure, if you do that, then who needs testing of evolution theory? You've already ruled out everything else!

See above. I don't need to "rule out" a theory that never existed and was never proposed.

Darwin was in error in overestimating the creative power of mutation and selection.

Prove it. Otherwise you are in error imagining the creative power of magical entities which are not only not in evidence, but which cannot be distinguished from the illusions of delusion. You even go so far as speak of the breadth of their imagined abilities -as if you had some way to measure that, or could even honestly claim to know anything about them at all, when you can't even show any reason to pretend that such things even could be real.

Where did you get your science degrees anyway? Did you order them online?

Evolution from reptile species to mammal species over time, never happened. This is what I will proof, when it is my turn to present evidence.

It doesn't look like you're ever gong to get your turn. So I'll save you the trouble and do that now. It depends on what you think a 'reptile' is.

From a Cladistic perspective, only diapsids (and maybe anapsids) are true reptiles. They descend from sauropsids. But the ancestors of mammals were synapsids, a sister clade. so technically we were never reptiles at all, not 'true' reptiles anyway. Consequently, the only genetic links between us should be those shared with the very earliest reptiles like anapsids. But I'm sure you would still consider dimetrodon a reptile, regardless what its correct classification is.

Practically every mythical animal men have ever imagined immediately violates taxonomy. My favorite among them are vertebrate hexapods.

Alright, finding those would destroy your theory perhaps. I rather think you'd just adjust your theory to incorporate these phenomena and add another branch to your tree.

Can't be done. You have a lot to learn about the strict rules of monophyly, and nested hierarchies based on derived synapomorphies. The first thing you need to learn is how that tree is constructed. The tree doesn't provide the proof, the proof provides the tree.

And I have to add that the fact that you are an ape, (specifically a great ape) a monkey, (specifically an Old World monkey) as well as a Haplorhine primate, archontid eutherian mammal, and every other clade which should only apply in an evolutionary phylogeny -does not support, and cannot be accounted for- by any other alternative explanation.

This depends on your world view.

No it doesn't. I can prove that humans are apes, and I can do it quite easily -regardless whether you want to believe that or not. Your 'world view' is irrelevant.

Just what do you think an ape is anyway? Can you define that?

I'll tell you what, since you're way out of your element on this one, and I don't have the time to give you a proper lesson in step-by-step fashion, then I'll just point you to my own essay on systematic phylogenetics, and when we come back, let's see if you can tell me what an ape is; or a monkey, or a dinosaur, or anything else for that matter.

Here's a hint. I'm not the one jumping to conclusions. I had to learn all this, and it made me change my mind about a lot of things I once believed. Sometimes (like you) I tried to resist. But like I said, once you examine how to categorize life-forms monophyletically (which you have to in an actual phylogeny) then it doesn't matter whether you use morphological, physiological, embryological, or molecular evidence, you're going to have to accept that you are an ape. Even creation scientists knew that centuries ago. It was proven genetically a decade ago, and now we have ERVs to prove that it happened via common ancestry.

There, my argument is evidently true, as it has already been validated many different ways, is adequately complete, and definitely decisive. Now I'm ready to watch you ignore every point, query, or challenge I just put before you,again.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

I never mentioned the words 'diverse' nor 'consistent' in any descriptive of the phylogenetic tree. Cladistic taxonomy is both of these things, but that's not why it is compelling. Understanding the implications of it run much deeper than that.

Are you saying it's neither diverse nor consistent or are you saying it's both of these things???Plain english please!

It runs deeper than that, you say. But you can not name it. Hmmm. It is something. And that something runs deeper. But it is not diversity nor consistenty. But it does include both of them and running deeper.What am I suppose to make out of this? You cannot even answer a simple question.

like cats giving birth to dogs, or a tree turning into a giraffe, or molecules spontaneously assembling themselves into a man.

When did I ever mention anything like this???

When challenged on details, the best you can expect to get is "that's the way Goddidit". And anything scientists cannot explain -yet- is somehow proof that Goddidit,at least in the minds of indoctrinated believers.

You were suppose to provide positive evidence for evolution. Not negative evidence against creation.

This results in two problems:1. Your strength depends on how weak you think creation is as theory.2. You manage only to provide evidence against straw man creation theories. In order for you to reject creation, you have to reject the most likely theory of creation. Not some self made up mumbo jumbo creation theory.

That's what I tried to do when I explained how to test creation within the phylogenetic tree, and when I pointed out that evolution is a working theory, and that it is the only one.

This is how evolutionists - including you and especially you - argue:1. We see many genetic relationships in the tree of life.2. Evolution explains these relationships very well.3. Evolution must be true then.

Sounds like a logical way of reasoning, if you care more about story telling than about science and logic.

But don't worry. I'll educate you.When there's relationships within groups, we can use hierarchical analysis to find nested hierarchies and we get a visual of what could likely be related to other things in the group.It is important to know that nested hierarchies always show relationships. That means, you get a tree, even if there is no prior relationship what so ever.

Now, if you understood this, you should be able to filter out this logic:If there is a relation of common ancestry, we can find where such relationships are likely to be using a phylogenetic tree. This is good logic.However, when we say we find relationships in a nested tree (nested trees always show relationship), that means that there is a common ancestral relationship. This is bad logic.

I've already shown a tree with clothes. They are man made objects, so they show a lot of repeating, but it is still nested. You can try to create a nested hierarchy with planets, or stars, or solar systems, or butterflies, or atoms (helium and such) and get more complicated trees with less repetition.

You concede that natural selection really does work, and that you can't offer any demonstrable process other than 'descent with inherent modification' to explain either the origin or diversification of species.

I'm still waiting for you to provice some substantial positive evidence for evolution. I will discuss other theories later. Because right now, your mind is still focused on evolution being true. I'll break that first.

As I explained to you before, in all these debates, I like to prove that evolution is the best explanation of biodiversity there is.

I thought you said you never mentioned the word 'diverse'. Anyways, biodiversity is not the only data. So get on with it!

I accept your tree of life as evidence. It supports your theory of evolution in several ways.However, it is based on the assumption that there is a common ancestral relationship.The tree itself can show relationships that are really there, but can also show relationships that are only apparent, but not really there.

You can convince a lot of people with this evidence. But not all. And I think this 'flaw' in reasoning, is one of the reasons why you cannot convince all. You certainly have not convinced me.

"We for long have had no explanation of the force of gravity, and still the depths of this force (of what is actually driving it and pulling mass together) is not fully known. But we can assume that gravity is there, and that there must be some cause, which we do not yet know."I have two questions about this, just for the record: (1) Why have you ruled out supernatural causes? (2) If you threw a bowling ball into the air,and it didn't fall down, but just drifted away ...

(1) I never ruled out supernatural causes. Even with gravity. Can you tell where the law of gravity came from then? Not the mathmatical formula, but the pure law itself.(2) What is the point of this fairy tale of drifting bowling balls?

Look how much you've learned about the fundamental basics of science since this debate began.

Haha, you are so amusing. This has always been my view. It is not something I have learned during debate. And I certainly did not learn it from you.But hey. We are getting somewhere here. You agree that predictions of an unnatural cause and/or its predictions can be tested with scientific data and scientific methods. Is that right?

Yes it can. Let's do it, shall we?

Look at this comparison between -what you would call- 'reptiles' ...........and mammals[/color]

These each look like truly distinct categories, don't they? If you had actually taken my challenge to find 'created kinds' in the phylogenetic tree, and assuming that 'reptile' is one 'kind' and 'mammal' is another, then this is exactly the sort of thing you should expect to find. All the different species of snakes & lizards, crocodilians, pterosaurs & dinosaurs -should nest neatly into the 'reptile' side, while all the cats, bats, rats, & wombats, elephants, cattle, monkeys and manatees -should all nest into the 'mammal' side. And we should expect to find another completely different template for birds. But that would only be if each of these was an archetypal design from all which all subsequent forms diverged -according to the usual laws applied by an evolutionary phylogeny.

Of course we know that birds, reptiles, and mammals are each too broad a category for you, assuming you believe in the Bible, which already has snakes separate from other reptiles, cattle separate from other mammals, and birds are subdivided into at least three or four different kinds -within 'sorts' (whatever that is). Never-the-less, you get the idea.

I love seeing you digging your own grave here. And you don't even realize it. As soon as it's my turn, we'll see exactly how well your evolution theory predicts this.

The origin of true mammals from a plethora of "mammal-like reptiles" looks a bit like this:

Finally, some positive evidence for evolution. I'll remind myself to get into this in my next post.

we've already proven -conclusively- that there was never any global flood,

I'm not even debating that there ever was a global flood. But it's funny that you seem to be so certain of your proof, while it's already hard to proof recent floods having occured. So for science to rule out an ancient flood, global or local, sounds very suspicious to me. What data did you use for this???

The tree doesn't provide the proof, the proof provides the tree.

And so we agree that the tree proofs nothing.

In my many years' experience debating creationists, I have learned that you cannot simply explain anything to them, because they don't intend to listen. They've already decided,before they've even heard it- that whatever it is, it's going to be wrong.

I'm closing up for today. Forgive me for not addressing some of your major points. I will do so soon.Let me give you some advise though. Know your opponent. You're already making some big assumptions about me.I have been in favor of evolution before, in my life. I know where you stand and I can anticipate your every move.

I do have to admit, that I am still looking in to endogenous retroviruses. I do have data on it, but I cannot confirm it. I can't argue with this, because I'm not gonna argue with guesses. I need facts, but I can't find all the data.So if you agree, I'll post some questions about these virusses in one of my next posts, to get a clear picture of how exactly evolution theory is confirmed with this evidence (or not). Hey, maybe you can convince me after all. This is your chance

I said that the phylogenetic tree explains biodiversity, but I never described it as diverse, nor did I say that it needed to be. It is diverse, but that is irrelevant, and I already explained why repeatedly and in-depth. I explained exactly why the taxonomic 'tree of life' is significant, and you seem to be trying very hard to continue misunderstanding that. But my last post was very clear, and you have no excuse if you still don't get it. You're being deliberately obtuse now. I'm tired of further simplifying what I have already simplified for you. If you actually possessed one quarter of either the education or aptitude you boast, none of that would have been necessary.

When I asked you to tell me what would convince you, I followed that with an explanation of how absurd creationist criteria always is, and why I only get dishonest answers. I did that to let you know that whatever your answer is should be something an educated person would reasonably expect. What you did instead was to ignore the question completely, which is equally dishonest and not at all surprising. You refused to answer the bowling ball question either, which is too bad. You'll never know why I asked it now.

You also ignored all my explanations about why we cannot seriously propose that anything ever happened by magic,even if we might want to believe that it did. Historically that has always been the wrong answer. To prove that, I asked you to list any instances in the history of science where assuming supernatural explanations ever actually improved our understanding of anything. You ignore that question too,for obvious reasons. They're the same reasons you refused to meet the primary challenge regarding created kinds in the tree of life.

I accept your tree of life as evidence. It supports your theory of evolution in several ways.However, it is based on the assumption that there is a common ancestral relationship.The tree itself can show relationships that are really there, but can also show relationships that are only apparent, but not really there.

As others in this forum have already pointed out, the tree was first constructed using only comparative morphology. With very few minor deviations, much the same tree appears whether you use physiology, genomics, retroviruses, or chronological placement in the geologic column. Unlike your clothes example, the construct of the phylogenetic tree isn't arbitrary, and offers multiple independent means of confirming itself objectively.

I know where you stand and I can anticipate your every move.

Obviously not.

I do have to admit, that I am still looking in to endogenous retroviruses. I do have data on it, but I cannot confirm it. I can't argue with this, because I'm not gonna argue with guesses. I need facts, but I can't find all the data.

I know. Rather than make any assumptions about you, I ran a few searches on you a few days ago. Among other things, I found where you were trying to inquire about ERVs, -not from any science resource, but from another poster on a discussion board of a video. That person pointed out that you clearly didn't even understand the video, much less the data behind it. But you ignored him and boasted then that you were trying to form some argument to disprove evolution, a concept you obviously never understood. I then saw where you tried to use your new-found rhetoric on the discussion board of another video, where you showed less dignity than an impudent pubescent with a potty-mouth. You should be ashamed of yourself, and I mean that sincerely. So I gathered up some of your comments on both boards and forwarded them to a geneticist so that we could share some laughs at your expense. I would quote her scathing critique of your infantile arguments, but I'm sure that if I did, you would then take those corrections and employ them no better than you've tried to use the pitiful few fragments of inadequate knowledge you've displayed here.

Know your opponent, you say? As I predicted, you have revealed an inexcusable ignorance of the fundamentals of science, both in principle and practice, such that there is now a consensus among observers that you must have lied about having any advanced degrees from any accredited institution. One minute you say, "so you can make predictions, big deal" then when all the observing scientists face-palm at that nonsense, you figured out that was wrong, and tried to save face. Too late.

As I have already explained, my challenge was two-fold. Part of that challenge was to expose creationists' misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, and of the word, 'theory' itself, and I have done that. Although you still haven't learned anything from it because you're still acting like you have an alternative theory, and you're still using the layman's sense of that word, which is wholly inappropriate here.

The other part of my challenge was to show substantial positive evidence in support of evolution, and I have certainly done that too. Not only did I present several different types, but I explained them for you in very simple language, and I even gave a series of options on how to confirm every sample of that for yourself, all of which you ignored. I explained why your clothes example cannot be a 'nested' hierarchy, but you're still pretending that it can be. You have failed in this debate in every way possible, other than forfeit. But your continued denial at this point does you more disgrace than if you had simply never posted here again.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

Short reply here, because I'm posting from a mobile device now and I have a busy weekend.

There's a lot on ERVs on detectingdesign.comIt argues against evolution. I don't trust everything that is said on that site, befor I can double check it. But it has way more in depth analysis than most evolutionsts sites.

Oh and your tree, you can make nested trees of atoms with different approaches, but you'd still get basicly the same tree. Same with molecules, or materials (carbon, fiber). Question remains: does idependant different approaches, resulting in the same tree mean that there is a certain relationship?

You think your life tree is so special. You beleave it proves a relationship of common ancestry. But that's your error.

Very well, you had your fun and minute of fame. I don't need to await for my turn, because I can show the data in response to your arguments and questions? And I still have other evidence beside that.

So be prepared for some real science and testing predictions. We'll see beyond doubt that this tree of life does not fit inside evolutions prediction range.

First blow against evolution theory, coming up.

Hypothesis: Evolution produced this tree of lifeData: Tree of life of fossils and living species Testing: Is it what evolution predicted?

Time of first appearance (MYA = Million Years Ago)300 MYA Early reptiles225 MYA Therapsids (mammal like reptiles)180 MYA Shrew like mammals (hair/fur)130 MYA Monotrenes (fur, a four-chambered heart, are warm-blooded, and nurse their young from specialized glands)120 MYA Placental mammals

Around 150 million years ago Pterosaurs, or flying dinosaurs were joined by - or, as many scientists say, they began to turn into - a much more aerodynamic, feathered creature. The bird was born.

"¦

The ancestors of all today's birds evolved later, he says, between 65 and 53 million years ago, independently of the dinosaurs. This is the "big bang theory" of birds. Feduccia and his fellow sceptics - it must be stressed they are in the minority - regard any similarity between birds and dinosaurs as an example of convergent evolution, by which two independent groups grow to look alike.

However the dinosuar-to-birds theory took another startling turn recently with the discovery of two species of feathered dinosaurs in China, dating from between 145 million and 125 million years ago.

Your first reference from Claremont college shows an illustration of a partial cladogram which neglected to include the origin of aves. You're not going to be able to challenge the phylogenetic tree by showing another one in which data has been omitted. However the 19th slide of that otherwise scant powerpoint presentation does show a relatively complete cladogram revealing an avian emergence from within maniraptoran dinosaurs.

It is curious that someone claiming to have two master's degrees would cite a powerpoint presentation rather than any actual scientific literature, especially when that comes from a mere bachelor college. But at least that is better than your second reference, which is only some hillbilly's personal home page. Not only that, but he's still using Linnaean taxonomy, and we're arguing cladistics! At this point, you can't disappoint me any more than you already have, so I'm not at all surprised at your third reference being Wikipedia. Instead I'm actually amused that it is definitely more reliable than either of your two remaining references. At first I thought I might be able to trust the PBS article, but the instant I saw it, I was taken aback by a handful of glaring errors in one highlighted sentence.

Around 150 million years ago Pterosaurs, or flying dinosaurs were joined by - or, as many scientists say, they began to turn into - a much more aerodynamic, feathered creature. The bird was born.

1. Pterosaurs are not a subset of dinosaurs. They are a separate clade which predate dinosaurs. I explained this in my video on the 10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.2. Birds ARE dinosaurs. In the 9th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, I prove that there is not one trait common to all birds that is not also found in non-avian dinosaurs. You can distinguish birds among dinosaurs, but it is no longer possible to distinguish birds from dinosaurs.

No scientist ever said that pterosaurs turned into birds, except Sir Richard Owen in the 19th Century. He was the last creationist scientist to enjoy any credibility among biologists and geologists; that is until he was finally kicked out of the Royal Society. In the 12th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, I explained how Owen tried to argue against avian evolution from dinosaurs by comparing the traits of birds with those of pterosaurs rather than dinosaurs, and Thomas Huxley exposed his deliberate strawman misrepresentation. So -in typical creationist fashion- you've chosen to cite a source who is still repeating an argument that was already proven fraudulent 150 years ago. That wasn't surprising once I realized that your article was written by Alan Feducca, also known as 'the creationists darling' for his association with the Intelligent Design movement.

The ancestors of all today's birds evolved later, he says, between 65 and 53 million years ago, independently of the dinosaurs.

Except that the earliest potential 'crown' of all aves is twice that old, and is itself a dinosaur, just like Archeopteryx, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Enantiornis, and every modern bird too. I designed a cladogram of my own to illustrate that.

Your final reference was so blatantly ass-backward that it actually implied that dinosaurs evolved from birds, in which case Microraptor would have been the first dinosaur, thus ignoring everything anyone ever knew about phylogeny. I immediately recognized the contrived desperation of this argument -as I have seen it many times before, and always from the same source. So I hit (Ctrl-F) and typed in "Ruben". Sure enough, it was written by John Ruben, the single source of all these type arguments in the press. Back in the 1990s, Ruben and Feducca, and a handful of others formed an organization called B.A.N.D. (Birds.Are.Not.Dinosaurs) being determined to deny any and all evidence that would ever imply that aves are nested within any lineage of therapods. Agreeing in advance to only support a pre-determined conclusion -regardless what evidence may come to light- is what is known as a bias, and it is a very dishonest position for any scientist to have.

Over the last decade or so, every claim I've ever seen against the therapod ancestry of aves have come from one of these two men. Consequently creationists have had to cite them exclusively. Initially,last millenia- some thought there was a chance they might be right. But all they ever had were negative arguments, none of which actually indicated that the accepted phylogeny wasn't correct, and Ruben even admitted this as a matter of public record. The last of their erroneous allegations were finally disproved in 2005 when a large and definitely non-avian therapod, Majungotholus atopus, was found to have a fully-avian respiratory system. Coincidentally, it was at the same time that heightened interest brought Archeopteryx back into review, and it was then,finally- discovered that it too had skeletal markers of the same respiratory system, as well as the presence of reduced leg feathers similar to those of Microraptor.

Can we agree on the data above so far?

I'd say that's a big NO. Is it too much to ask for some peer-reviewed sources, please? I wouldn't expect any less from someone with two masters degrees, but I have learned not to expect that much from you. So for that reason, I suggest Berkeley University's introductory primer, Evolution 101 In addition, I would also suggest the Arizona Tree of Life Project, ToLWeb. It's not the best source, but it is at least peer-reviewed, and the format is easy enough for a novice to navigate.

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain

Wow, you really got issues. Looking at more of your videos, you have two major points. One is attack of creationism and other is the assumption of a common ancester relationship.Your whole story is based on these two beliefs of yours.

This is gonna take some time to get some things out of your system and for you to be able to look and observe without assumption. That is the very basic of science.

I had all other plans, but they'd better wait.I see now I can never make you see, unless I take it one small step at a time.

Just the very definition of evolution is a source of error for your way of thinking scientificly.

So I conclude this post with only one question.What is your definition of evolution?

I don't have to assume common ancestry. I can prove it, and you already know I can. Because if you believed otherwise, then you wouldn't have dodged my challenge. If you honestly believed in your position, you also would have answered my question about what you would accept as evidence to change your mind. That you refused both of these things is very telling.

Among the most prevalent of all creationist tactics is projection, trying to pin your own faults onto someone else who does not share them. Sometimes ya'll say that evolution is just faith like religion is. Other times you'll say that creationism is science like evolution is; Neither of which is true of course, and you know that too. But most of the time, you accuse us of doing the very things that you always do, but which we never will. It's a ploy I refer to as, "the pot calling the silverware black".

The point is, I'm not the one making assumptions. For example, you were the one who said you could beat anybody debating any science subject, regardless whether you took a position supporting or opposing the scientific consensus. To make that claim, you'd have to be prepared to argue for the stork "theory" over that of obstetrics, which is actually a pretty close parallel to what you're really doing.

Your boast also illustrates two important things about you; First, you think that whatever is really true is irrelevant. What is amusing about that is that you challenged me to debate you in order to prove how honest you are. Obviously you had already failed in that before your challenge was even issued. Secondly, since you still don't know what evolution is, and didn't even bother to look it up until now, and were so ignorant of it that you actually believed that pterosaurs were supposed to have turned into birds, then you're certainly not depending on your knowledge of the subject; You have none. Nor does it matter how expert your opponent is, -on any topic you choose to discuss- because you intend to rely on empty rhetoric to weasel your way to some sort of semantic victory. But you just cannot do that in this instance. I know that dance all too well. It's all any of your ilk ever has.

You can't rile me or threaten me. I am beyond you. If you had any real identity on the web -as i do- then your reputation would already be ruined. You can't evoke emotions in your favor, so all your playground-level taunting only disgraces you further. All that matters here is whatever is really true, and if it isn't true enough, then you're just going to fail; as we both already know you will -and still would even if you really were as clever as you pretend to be, and even if I was as weak-minded as you're still gambling that I will be. It's just never been possible for me to lose a debate against someone like you.

You told me not to take your dare unless I was prepared to commit myself to it 100%, but you present no kind of challenge, nor it seems will you ever. You should have been much more dedicated yourself. Several of your repeated failures in this forum thus far came from you being an admittedly lazy reader, which is another reason we all think you're a fraud with no education beyond high school. One of the many things you should not have missed were the first comments in the first post of this debate -wherein I defined evolution for you. Just in case you were hoping to build a strawman, another thing you shouldn't have missed is the fact that the peer-reviewed university source which you and I agreed upon gives the same definition I did,as does every science-minded institution of higher learning. So if you're not using that definition, then you're using the wrong one.

You thought you could debate me without having any idea what you're even talking about. So of course you've failed in every effort thus far. But you haven't just disappointed everyone reading this, you're actually a boring them now. So hurry up and spit out whatever misunderstanding you have that you don't think I can correct, or whatever lame-ass rationalization I've already seen and refuted dozens of times, but that you think is an original quandary, so that I can finally close this debate on your foot by exposing the futility of your ignorance,one last time. And then we can all get back to better things. OK?

"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche. "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain